1

Pauls Messianic Christology

L. W. Hurtado (University of Edinburgh)

Abstract

Contrary to frequent scholarly claims, Jesus messianic status is integral to and significant in

Pauls christology. Also, contrary to claims often made, the christology and devotional

stance that Paul affirmed (and shared with others in the early Jesus-movement) was not a

departure from or a transcending of a supposedly monochrome Jewish messianism, but,

instead, a distinctive expression within a variegated body of Jewish messianic hopes. In this

paper, applying text-critical categories as a model, I first propose that we view Pauls

christology and devotional stance as comprising a particular and remarkable variant-form

of Jewish messianism among the diversity of messianic figures and beliefs reflected in

second-temple Jewish texts. I then discuss features that made it a distinctive and noteworthy

expression of Jewish messianism.

A Messianic Jesus

In the following pages I discuss particular features of Pauls christology that I contend

comprise a distinctive and noteworthy version of second-temple Jewish messianism. To use

a text-critical analogy, just as there was a textual pluriformity in biblical writings in the

second-temple period (evident in the biblical manuscripts from Qumran), so there was a

pluriformity in Jewish messianic hopes and figures; and I contend that Pauls beliefs about

Jesus constitute an especially noteworthy instance of that diversity.1 So, I propose that Pauls

christology reflects a particular, distinctive (in some ways unique) variant-form of Jewish

messianism. This will entail the prior judgement that Jesus messianic status is integral and

important in Pauls christological beliefs and devotional practice. So, I begin by addressing

this latter issue, which, in light of an important recent publication, I believe can be done

briefly.

1 See, e.g., John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient

Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995), who posits four distinct messianic paradigms: king, priest,

prophet, and heavenly messiah or Son of Man (195). There were different messianic paradigms, not one

composite concept of Messiah (196). But he also notes that there were occasionally instances of the merging

of two or more of these paradigms, forming a composite figure (195). See also Adela Yarbro Collins and

John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in biblical

and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008); Andrew Chester, Messiah and Exaltation: Jewish

Messianic and Visionary Traditions and New Testament Christology (WUNT 207; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck,

2007), esp. 191-327, 329-63, who judged it is not possible to speak of a single form of messianic expectation

or concept . . .; instead, we have to reckon with a variety of different kinds of beliefs and figures (355).

2

I consider that the argument that Jesus messianic significance was an important

factor in Pauls christology has been strengthened considerably in the excellent study by my

Edinburgh colleague, Matthew Novenson, recently published: Christ among the Messiahs.2

In this work, he first addresses the much-debated linguistic question of how

functioned in Pauls discourse. A number of scholars have judged that, despite (or even

because of) the frequency of Pauls usage of the appellative, in his letters is (or is

virtually) a name, with little (or nothing) of its meaning/usage as messiah remaining or of

significance.3

But Novenson shows (persuasively to my mind) that in Pauls usage should be

seen as an example of a particular onomastic category, the honorific. Novenson defines an

honorific as a word that can function as a stand-in for a personal name but part of whose

function is to retain its supernominal associations.4 That is, Paul reflects second-temple

Jewish usage of (and equivalents in other ancient languages) as an appellative for a

figure (typically a human) who will act as Gods agent of eschatological redemption; but in

Pauls usage the term is applied exclusively and restrictively to Jesus.5 Indeed, in Pauls

usage the term is tied to Jesus so tightly that it can serve on its own to designate him (about

150 times in the uncontested letters, e.g., 1 Cor 15:3, 12-28). Pauls exclusive association of

the term with Jesus is what has misled those who have characterized in his usage as

(merely) a name.6

2 Matthew V. Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah language in

Ancient Judaism (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). 3 E.g., Chester, Messianism, Mediators, and Pauline Christology, Messiah and Exaltation, 329-96 (see esp.

382-83), who judges that Christ in Paul is mainly bland and apparently insignificant in the way it is used

(383), and who queries how it is that Paul managed to circumvent or ignore the messianic tradition (and

earlier emphasis on Jesus as Messiah) almost entirely (384). 4 Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs, 138. I acknowledge that Novensons case that Pauls use of is

an instance of an honorific is a superior way of capturing what I meant in referring to the frequency of Pauls

application of the term to Jesus as such that the term practically functions as a name for Jesus (Pauls

Christology, in The Cambridge Companion to St. Paul, ed. J. D. G. Dunn [Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2003], 191), and that functions almost like an alternate name for Jesus (Lord Jesus Christ:

Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003], 99). It appears that my phrasing

misled Novenson into including me among those who hold the axiom that Pauls is a name, not a title (Christ Among the Messiahs, 66 n. 12). 5 The obvious text regarded as exhibiting Jewish use of in particular as an appellative for a royal

messianic figure is Pss.Sol. 1718. Of course, in the Hebrew Bible and extra-biblical Jewish texts, anointed

(one) () can have various applications, and messianic figures may not always be referred to as . To

cite Collins (The Scepter and the Star, 12), a messiah is an eschatological figure who sometimes, but not

necessarily always, is designated as a in the ancient sources. And for Collinss treatment of Pss.Sol., see

49-56. 6 See, e.g., Martin Hengels essay, Christos in Paul, in Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul (London: SCM,

1983), 65-77 (German original, Erwgungen zum Sprachgebrauch von bei Paulus und in der

vorpaulinischen berlieferung, in Paul and Paulinism. Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett, eds. M. D.

Hooker and S. G. Wilson [London: SPCK, 1982], 135-58). Hengel characterized Pauls use of Christos as

3

Novenson points to analogies, such as use of the honorific Augustus for Octavian,

similarly Epiphanes uniquely designating Antiochus IV, and, among Jewish examples,

Judah Maccabee and Shimon bar Kochba.7 To cite Novensons concisely expressed

judgement: Pauls is an honorific, and it works according to the syntactical rules

that govern that onomastic category.8 As Novenson concludes later in his study, If

in Paul seems to be not quite a title and not quite a name, this is not because it is on an

evolutionary path from the one category to the other but because it is generically something

else.9 If Dahls classic essay, in which he laid out philological observations that seemed

to lead to negative conclusions, has served heretofore as the key analysis of Pauls usage of

, I judge that Novensons study has superseded it, and must now be regarded as the

definitive treatment of the philological question.10

Second, in an analysis of a selection of Christ passages in Paul, Novenson shows

that Paul does all that we normally expect any ancient Jewish or Christian text to do to count

as a messiah text and that in no case does he ever disclaim the category of messiahship.11

There are those (e.g., F. C. Baur) who posit a narrow and ethno-centric Jewish messianism

and portray Paul as negating or transcending it. There are also those who contend that,

precisely to avoid making any claim requiring Jewish response to his gospel, Paul avoided

ascribing messianic significance to Jesus (e.g., Gaston). Then, there is what has been the

majority view that, although Paul may well have regarded Jesus as Messiah at some level,

this was not an important emphasis in his faith and teaching (e.g., Chester).12

But Novenson

more of a riddle than a key to a better understanding of Pauline christology (66). Labelling Christos as a

proper name in Pauls letters (72), nevertheless, Hengel also contended (correctly in my view) that Paul likely

explained to his Gentile churches what Christos meant (73-76). 7 Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs, 64-97, esp. 87-97 for his discussion of the category of honorific.

8 Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs, 97.

9 Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs, 134.

10 Nils A. Dahl, Die Messianitt Jesu bei Paulus, in Studia Paulina in honorem Johannis de Zwaan

septuagenarii (Haarlem: Bohn, 1953), 83-95; ET, The Messiahship of Jesus in Paul, in Dahl, Jesus the

Christ: The Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine, ed. Donald H. Juel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,

1991), 15-25. Note also Hengels view (influenced by Dahl) that in Paul functions as a cognomen:

Christos in Paul, 66 ; and, of course, the oft-cited study by Werner Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God (SBT

50; Naperville: Alec R. Allenson, 1966), e.g., 42-44. Cf. in particular Novensons analysis of Christ phrases in

Paul, where he examines Dahls philological observations about Pauls use of : Christ among the

Messiahs, 98-136. 11

Novenson, Christ among the Messiahs, 137-73 (citing 138). The passages he examines are Gal 3:16; 1 Cor

15:20-28; 2 Cor 1:21-22; Rom 9:1-5; Rom 15:3, 9; 15:7-12; 1 Cor 1:23; 2 Cor 5:16-17; Rom 1:3-4. 12

F. C. Baur, Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi (Stuttgart: Becher und Mller, 1845; ET, Paul the Apostle of

Jesus Christ, 2 vols; London: Williams & Norgate, 1845-46; rpr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003); Lloyd

Gaston, Paul and the Torah, in Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity, ed. A. T. Davies (New

York: Paulist, 1979), 48-71; rpr. in Lloyd Gaston, Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British

Columbia Press, 1987), 15-34; Andrew Chester, The Christ of Paul, in Redemption and Resistance: The

Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity, eds. Markus Bockmuehl & James Carlton Paget (London:

T&T Clark, 2007), 109-21. To cite a more recent work, I cannot find any discussion of the question of whether

4

builds a strong case that Pauls Christ language should be seen as a case study in early

Jewish messiah language, and that Jesus messianic status and significance form a major

factor in Pauls religious beliefs, and the beliefs of the early circles of believers that are

reflected in his letters.

I admit that my appreciation for Novensons work is likely conditioned by my

perception of it as a more sophisticated articulation, and more thorough defence, of a view

that I expressed some years ago.13

As Novenson grants, to take this view of Pauls

christology as having a strong messianic coloring is to depart from what has been the

majority or dominant view among NT scholars.14

But there are others as well who have

reached a similar conclusion, and Novenson has now given further strong reasons to do so.15

In light of his work especially, I shall not focus here on arguing this point further. Instead, on

the now reinforced premise that Jesus messianic status was significant for Paul, I wish to

turn now to several features of Pauls messianic christology that make it a noteworthy, even

distinctive variant-form of Jewish messianism.16

Distinctives of Pauls Messianic Christology

In referring to distinctives of Pauls christology, I mean features that distinguish the beliefs

and devotional stance reflected in Pauls letters from other forms of Jewish messianism.17

As

Paul regarded Jesus as Messiah in Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul was not a Christian: The Original Message of a

Misunderstood Apostle (New York: HarperOne, 2009). Messiah does not even appear in the index. 13

Hurtado, Pauls Christology, esp. 193; id., Lord Jesus Christ, 98-101. 14

Perhaps the most vocal exception is N. T. Wright, who has insisted in numerous publications that in all of

Pauls uses of there is an intended and strong messianic claim. But I find more dubious Wrights accompanying claim that in ancient Jewish thought Messiah typically had a strong incorporative sense,

Messiah seen as Israels embodiment. On the basis of this claim, Wright then also contends that in Pauls

thought, as Messiah, Jesus embodied/embodies Israel, and through Jesus and the subsequent gospel, thus,

Israel is transformed to become all those who are joined to Jesus (effectively, the church). Moreover, more

recently, Wright claims that Paul also saw Messiah Jesus as the embodiment of the returning YHWH. Among

Wrights publications, see, e.g., The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology

(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), esp.18-40, 41-55; and now Paul and the Faithfulness of God (2 vols;

London: SPCK, 2013), 2:690-709, 815-911. I find Wrights claims problematic, but I cannot (and need not)

engage them here. 15

For somewhat similar views, see, e.g., Collins and Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God, 101-22; Edward

Adams, Paul, Jesus, and Christ, in The Blackwell Companion to Jesus, ed. Delbert Burkett (London:

Blackwell, 2011), 94-110 (esp. 98-99); Ben Witherington III, Christ, DPL 95-100. Likewise, see Paula

Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews (New York: Knopf, 2000), 125-37, who contends that Pauls

view of Jesus as Messiah was closely connected to Pauls gentile mission. For a somewhat similar proposal that

for Paul Jesus messiahship and Gentile salvation were connected, see Matthew V. Novenson, The Jewish

Messiahs, the Pauline Christ, and the Gentile Question, JBL 128 (2009), 357-73. 16

Cf. Paula Fredriksens reference to early circles of Jewish Christians as comprising a variant type of

apocalyptic Judaism: From Jesus to Christ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 167. 17

Cf. Witherington, Christ, 98, who posited three elements in [Pauls] preaching that were without known

precedents in early Judaism: (1) Messiah is called God; (2) Messiah is said to have been crucified, and his death

is seen as redemptive; (3) Messiah is expected to come to earth again. It is unclear, however, that Paul called

Jesus God, and the following discussion will show additional features that are noteworthy and even

distinctive.

5

indicated already, contrary to some other scholars, I do not present Pauls christology over

against a monolithic Jewish messianism, but instead as a distinctive variant-form of a diverse

Jewish messianism of his time.18

One further preliminary note: Pauline scholars have frequently portrayed him as a

massively creative figure (e.g., the first Christian theologian).19

I do not deny that there seem

to be some distinctive and creative features in Pauls beliefs, and that he was impressive in

articulating them.20

Moreover, he certainly appears to have had a distinctive vision of Gods

redemptive programme, and his own particular calling by God to obtain the obedience of

faith among all the Gentiles (Rom 1:5) as a/the key component in that programme. But I

tend to think that in a number of other matters, including christological beliefs and related

devotional practices in particular, Paul reflected (and intentionally so) a religious stance that

he shared with other believers, and, unlike the professional theologian, did not really devote

himself to producing some distinctive programme of Christian doctrine. In any case, as

indicated already, my primary concern here is to treat certain features of the messianic

thought affirmed and advocated by Paul (i.e., what he shared with other early Christian

circles) as reflecting a novel and distinctive development in the context of the diversity of

second-temple Jewish messianism.

Messiahs Death and Resurrection

It will scarcely require supporting argumentation to note that Jesus death and

resurrection are emphases central in Pauls statements of faith (e.g., Rom 4:24-25), in his own

preaching (e.g., 1 Cor 2:1-5; Gal 3:1), and in the traditions that he says he received and

shared in (e.g., 1 Cor 15:1-7). Paul refers to Jesus death variously, e.g., as expressing Jesus

obedience to God (e.g., Philip 2:6-8), Jesus love (e.g., 2 Cor 5:14-15), and Gods redemptive

purpose (e.g., Rom 8:31-39), and as the model to be actuated in the behaviour of believers

(e.g., Rom 6:1-11). Likewise, Jesus resurrection and exaltation to heavenly glory is the

decisive act of God that bestowed on Jesus a unique status now as Kyrios, as the Son of

18

In light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can now speak of a revival of messianic expectation in Judaism in the

Hamonean and Herodian periods, Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, 63. 19

For treatments of Paul that (over?) emphasize his theological creativity and uniqueness in early Christianity,

see, e.g., J. D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), Paul was the first

and greatest Christian theologian (2); and still more so Wright, Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Cf.,

however, the classic (and now under-appreciated) study by Archibald M. Hunter, Paul and His Predecessors,

2nd ed. (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961); and my discussion of Early Pauline Christianity in Lord

Jesus Christ (79-153), in which I focus on beliefs about Jesus that were broadly characteristic of Pauline

churches, rather than on Paul as a theologian (98). 20

As seems to have been noted among Pauls original readers, who characterized his letters as weighty and

strong (2 Cor 10:10).

6

God, and as universal ruler (e.g., Philip 2:9-11; Rom 1:3-4; 1 Cor 15:20-28). So, these

divine actions also serve as the assurance of, and the pattern for, the eschatological (bodily)

redemption of believers (e.g., Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:42-49; Philip 3:21). Obviously, much

more could be said, but it is surely unnecessary to argue further the basic point that in Pauls

beliefs Jesus death and resurrection were hugely important and were thematized in various

ways.

Moreover, as Kramer noted decades ago, in Pauls numerous references to Jesus

death and resurrection (as also in other NT writings) the appellative Christ is particularly

prominent (e.g., 1 Cor 8:11; 15:3; Rom 5:6, 8; 14:15).21

This seems to reflect an emphasis on

Jesus death and resurrection as messianic acts/events, an emphasis that likely originated in

circles of Aramaic-speaking and Greek-speaking Jews and was then echoed and applied by

Paul.22

This emphasis on Jesus death and resurrection is what other scholars also often cite

as a/the distinctive feature of the messianism affirmed by Paul: The claim that the Messiah

had been crucified and then God had raised him from death.

Paula Fredriksen, for example, refers to this claim as one glaring oddity in the early

messianic movement comprised by followers of Jesus.23

She notes (rightly) that a

crucified messiah was evidently not inconceivable: Jews [the early Jewish believers] could

and did conceive it. But she judges that the early proclamation of the crucified and

resurrected Messiah-Jesus did not succeed with most first-century Jews, because A messiah,

crucified or otherwise, was not a messiah in the eyes of Jewish tradition if after his coming

the world continued as before.24

That is to say that for many/most Jews of Pauls time,

21

Kramer, Christ, Lord, Son of God, 19-38 (citing 35). Kramer sought to identify pre-Pauline confessional

formulae, with some success in my view. But I also find his tradition-critical analysis faulty at a number of

points that need not be discussed here. 22

See, e.g., my discussion of Judean Christian Traditions in Pauls Letters in Lord Jesus Christ, 167-76. 23

Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ, 142. Note also her statement, But for one necessary adjustment in their

preachingexplaining why the messiah had been crucifiednothing that the early apostles claimed about Jesus

would have been foreign to other Jews (153). As will be clear from the following discussion, I do not see the

emphasis on Jesus crucifixion and resurrection as the only distinctive, or the most offensive, feature of the

earliest Jesus-movement to other Jews of the first century CE. 24

Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ, 167-68. She also contends that so long as the church remained

predominantly Jewish, Gentile adherents were not a problem for Jews, but as it became more and more Gentile,

it compromised its identity as a renewal movement within Judaism, and hence its chances for success among

Jews (168). It is not clear to me, however, that a disproportion of Gentiles to Jews in early Christian circles

developed early enough to account for the hardening against the gospel that Paul complained about already in

Romans 911 (56-57 CE). Cf. W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish

Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), 369-70 (cited approvingly by Fredriksen,

From Jesus to Christ, 173 n. 75), who claimed that Gentiles became the majority at a very early date. But

Jewish believers likely remained dominant, at least as leaders, all across at least the first several decades of the

Jesus-movement. In any case, I rather suspect that there were other factors in the Jewish large-scale negative

response to earliest Christianity. See L. W. Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical

7

Jesus was a failed messiah, his crucifixion a stumbling block (1 Cor 1:23) that contradicted

any messianic claim.

John Collins posits that early christological claims departed decisively from the

Jewish paradigms in many respects, likewise citing as one important such departure the

notion that the messiah should suffer and die.25

The term departed may, however, be a

bit retrospective and anachronistic for the early decades of the Jewish Jesus-movement and

the time of the Pauline mission. Certainly, it appears that the claim that Jesus crucifixion

was an integral (even divinely ordained) part of his messianic role was without precedent or

analogy in the known versions of second-temple messianism, and so was a genuinely

innovative notion that also entailed novel readings of biblical texts (e.g., Pss 16; 22; 69; 116).

But, to repeat Fredriksens observation, it was a notion that emerged initially in circles of

Aramaic-speaking and Greek-speaking Jews, and in the Jewish homeland.

Furthermore, these earliest Jewish believers did not withdraw from their ethnic ties,

or, so far as we can see, understand their messianic claims about Jesus as a departure from

their ancestral faith. Instead, they engaged fellow Jews declaring their novel messianic

claims in the hope of securing acceptance of these claims as reflecting the fulfilment of

Jewish eschatological/messianic hopes. That these earliest Jewish believers may have met

with only limited success in the early decades, and that their claims eventually came to be

regarded as a Jewish heresy, should not obscure the recognition that their messianic faith

(admittedly peculiar in that context) commenced as what we may term a novel variant-form

of Jewish messianism.

For the purposes of this paper, I underscore that this view of their message also

characterizes Pauls messianic christology. Fully recognizing that the proclamation of the

crucified Jesus was a difficult sell to many/most Jews, Paul nevertheless continued to hold

that this message is the authentic manifestation of Gods redemptive purposes (Rom 3:21-

26), and that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel (Rom 9:1-5) in whom the Torah finds its

eschatological consummation (its ; Rom 10:4).

Interval and Parousia

In early Christian teaching reflected in Paul, Messiahs death and resurrection entailed

another distinctive feature, an interval between these events and the future consummation of

Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), Early Jewish Opposition to

Jesus-Devotion, 152-78; originally published in JTS 50 (1999), 35-58. 25

Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 208.

8

Gods redemptive programme, in which Jesus return in glory () was central.26 The

interval between Jesus resurrection and parousia is itself endowed with special significance

as the time for proclamation of the gospel, whether to Jews or, especially in Pauls case, to

Gentiles, making it the time of salvation and giving it a strong eschatological significance.

The resulting scheme, in which the Messiah appears and is divinely confirmed (Jesus

resurrection), followed by this interval in which the message focused on his identity and

significance is proclaimed, culminating in his return (parousia) and attendant events that

comprise the consummation of Gods redemptive purposes (e.g., resurrection of the elect),

seems to be another novel and unprecedented feature of early Christian messianism.

A Cosmic Dimension

A third noteworthy feature of Pauls messianic christology is the cosmic dimension to

Jesus exaltation and appointed rule. To be sure, among the other various forms of Jewish

messianism, there were expectations of a universal dimension to Messiahs rule. For

example, the royal Messiah of Psalms of Solomon will redeem Israel and will also exercise

sovereignty over all the nations to the ends of the earth (17:30-31).

Of course, various biblical texts posited a world-wide supremacy/sovereignty for the

Davidic monarch of Judea (e.g., Psa 2:7-11), and Paul also seems to have read Psalm 8 as

prefiguring the Messiah, citing particularly the reference in this psalm to God putting all

things in subjection to him (1 Cor 15:25-28, citing Psa 8:6). But in Pauls description of

Jesus exaltation and sovereignty they extend beyond world-wide to encompass all other

dimensions as well. Note that in 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 Paul even includes death as one of

the enemies to be subjugated to Christ and destroyed (v. 26). In the oft-studied passage

widely thought to derive from an early Christian ode, Philippians 2:6-11, Jesus is given the

name above every name, and is to be acclaimed by every being in heaven and on earth and

under the earth (vv. 10-11). This is by no means peculiar to Paul, but is reflected in other

NT texts as well, Jesus supremacy over heavenly powers especially cited (e.g., 1 Pet 3:22;

Heb 1:3-14).

We may come close to an analogy in the messianic figure of the Parables of Enoch

who will exercise supremacy over kings and their kingdoms worldwide (1 Enoch 46; 48:4-

6,8-10; 52:6-9; 62:3-12), and will even judge Azazel and all his associates and all his host

26

E.g., 1 Cor 15:23. In other Pauline texts, Paul refers to the parousia of the/our Lord Jesus (e.g., 1 Thess

2:19; 3:13; 5:23), the Lord (1 Thess 4:15). Other NT writings as well reflect this use of parousia (e.g., 2

Thess 2:1; James 5:7-8; 2 Pet 3:4; 1 John 2:28; Matt 24:3, 27, 37, 39). Cf. also Pauls use of the term to refer to

the return of Titus (2 Cor 7:6-7) and his own (bodily) presence (2 Cor 10:10; Philip 1:26; 2:12). Collins has

noted this distinctive also (Scepter and the Star, 209).

9

(55:4). In another Parables text the enthroned Chosen One even appears to judge all the

works of the holy ones in the heights of heaven (61:8). In any event, the form of

messianism reflected in Paul seems more encompassing, more truly universal on a cosmic

scale than at least some other forms, with all dimensions of reality to be subjected to Jesus.

We should also note that Jesus messianic supremacy is redemptive, not only for

Israel but for the nations as well. Whereas, in some forms of Jewish messianism Messiah

subdues the nations, and may even inflict punishment upon them, in the vision we have

reflected in Paul Jesus redeems Gentiles as well as Israel, enfranchising Gentiles into the

Abrahamic family (e.g., Gal 3:25-29).

An Affective Emphasis

Still another striking feature of Pauls messianic christology, and one that is curiously

not commented on very frequently, is its strong affective tone. That is, Pauls christological

discourse is characterized by a striking intensity in expressing his relationship to Christ, and

the relationship of believers to Christ as well. For example, there is Pauls reference to his

having been crucified with Christ, and to his continuing life as one of entrusting himself to

the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me (Gal 2:20).27

Or consider his

passionately worded autobiographical passage in Philippians, where he declares the supreme

importance of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, and posits his single-minded aim to know

Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings (Philip 3:7-11). Or

note his statement of being motivated strongly by the love of Christ, whose redemptive

death for all now should generate an answering life-commitment to Christ (2 Cor 5:14-15).28

In other statements, Paul also refers to Gods love, connecting it strongly with Christ,

as in Romans 8:39, declaring that nothing in all creation can separate us from the love of

God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.29

Indeed, there are several references to Gods love

(typically for believers) in Pauls letters (e.g., Rom 5:5, 8; 2 Cor 13:11, 14; and in the NT

more widely), and also references to loving God (e.g., Rom 8:28; 1 Cor 2:9). This is not

typical of religious discourse generally in the Roman religious environment, and so may well

27

I take the as Pauls reference to entrusting himself to Christ. But note the interesting textual

variant, . . . , supported by P46 B D* F G and a few other witnesses. In either reading, however, there is a strong note of close relationship of Paul and Christ. 28

I take anyone who does not live the Lord in 1 Cor 16:22 also as referring love for Christ as the rightful

stance of believers. 29

In the similar assurance in Rom 8:35, most witnesses refer to , but several witnesses

(including ) have . Vaticanus reading, , seems

an obvious harmonization with the wording in 8:39.

10

reflect a kind of discourse that Paul inherited from his biblical tradition, which features

references to YHWHs love for Israel, and Israels love for YHWH.30

But, to underscore my point here, Pauls emphasis on the love of Christ and the

strongly affective tone in Pauls references to his relationship to Christ as well, are, to my

knowledge, without precedent or analogy in other forms of second-temple Jewish messianic

discourse. One factor helping to account for this might be that Pauls messianic figure is a

real, known person of then-living memory, whereas most other types of ancient Jewish

messianism projected some future, as yet unidentified, figure.31

Moreover, as noted, the closest analogy is in the biblical-tradition discourse about

Gods love and loving God in return, and the expressions of intense devotion found

especially often in the Psalms. Perhaps, also, this discourse-tradition was another factor. We

could say that Pauls religious discourse reflects a kind of incorporation of Jesus into this

tradition, perhaps giving us one of a number of expressions of what we may term a dyadic

pattern, in which Jesus is linked with God uniquely and intimately in early Christian belief

and devotional/worship practice (more on the latter in due course).32

Whatever the factors to

invoke, my emphasis here is that this affective tone to Pauls discourse about Jesus is

remarkable.

Incorporation in/into Messiah

This affective discourse concerning Jesus seems to be related to the way that Paul

refers to the incorporative relationship of believers to Jesus/Christ, which has been labelled

variously by scholars as, e.g., union with Christ, or Christ-mysticism, or participation in

Christ.33

The most well-known, and oft-studied, Pauline expression of this is the

construction frequent in Pauls letters (56 times in the seven undisputed letters).34

In

30

YHWHs love for Israel (e.g., Isa 54:8; Jer 31:3; Zeph 3:17; and other texts such as the memorable lines in Isa

49:15-18). Israels (or devout individuals) love for YHWH (e.g., Deut 6:5; 10:12; 11:1; 30:6; Psa 18:1; 31:23). 31

But, of course, Pauls affective tone cannot have derived from association with Jesus prior to his execution. 32

In earlier publications I characterized this duality as a binitarian devotional pattern, but more recently I have

adopted the term dyadic, as it is less burdened by theological associations. Cf., e.g., L. W. Hurtado, The

Binitarian Shape of Early Christian Worship, in The Jewish roots of Christological Monotheism, eds. Carey C.

Newman, James R. Davila, Gladys S. Lewish (JSJSup 63; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 187-213; id. God in New

Testament Theology (Nashville: Abingdon, 2010), esp. 49-71. 33

The most recent study of this topic known to me is Constantine R. Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ: An

Exegetical and Theological Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), which offers an analysis of Pauls various

expressions: , , , . But he does not distinguish between the undisputed letters and those widely regarded as deutero-Pauline. 34

This figure does not include the uses of in him/whom or the numerous instances of (35 of the latter alone in the seven undisputed letters). The latter expression is used some 24 times in the LXX, all of these, of

course, referring to YHWH.

11

addition, there are related expressions that are often used with reference to believers vis--vis

Jesus: , , , and also .

In the history of scholarship, prompted initially by Deissmanns 1892 treatise,

scholars made various attempts to determine what Pauls references to believers being in

Christ meant and what relationship Pauls so-called mysticism may have had to its

religious environment. Near the end of the twentieth century, however, Dunn judged that

scholarly interest in the subject had faded and that the topic had become a back number

in Pauline studies.35

It is neither possible nor necessary here to engage the intricacies of that

scholarly debate, much less to expound in any adequate manner Pauls discourse about

believers as intimately in relationship to Christ. Instead, I simply wish to highlight the

integral place occupied by this discourse in Pauls messianic christology, and note that this is

another distinctive feature of it in comparison to other strands of second-temple messianism.

Although much more attention historically has been given to the place and meaning of

justification, this emphasis on believers as incorporated in/into Christ is actually very

important in Pauls theological discourse. Dunn judged it much more pervasive in [Pauls]

writings than his talk of Gods righteousness, and Dunn also contended that study of

participation in Christ leads more directly into the rest of Pauls theology than justification.36

Indeed, to cite Dunn one further time, he proposed that, as a fundamental aspect of his

thought and speech, Pauls frequent references to being in Christ/in the Lord reflect his

view that the life of believers, its source, its identity, and its responsibilities, could be

summed up in these phrases.37

But we must also note that this centrality of Christ was not at all at the expense of

God in Pauls religious thought and practice (nor in other NT writings either). On the one

hand, the key distinguishing feature of discourse about God in Paul (and the NT generally) is

the prominent place of Jesus. Jesus is the one by whom believers typically identify

themselves, and in their collective devotional practices he is explicit and central in a degree

35

Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 390-412 (citing 393-94), which includes a bibliography of key

earlier studies. The classic ones are, of course, Adolf Deissmann, Die neutestamentliche Formel in Christo

Jesu (Marburg: Elwert, 1892; reprint: Nabu Public Domain Reprints, 2010); id., Paul: A Study in Social and

Religious History (2nd

ed. Trans. W. E. Wilson; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1926; German orig. ed., 1911;

2nd

ed. 1925); Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913; 5th

edition 1964;

English translation, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970, republished Waco: Baylor University Press, 2013);

Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (trans. W. Montgomery; London: A. & C. Black, 1931;

German ed., 1929). Already by the date of Deissmanns Paul, he could list a full page of publications

discussing the topic (140-41 n. 1). Also note the thoughtful discussion of The Corporate Christ in C. F. D.

Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 47-96. 36

Dunn, Theology, 391, 395. Cf., e.g., some 50 uses of in the seven undisputed Paulines, 34 of these uses in Romans. 37

Dunn, Theology, 399.

12

and manner that is remarkable and even distinctive. On the other hand, in all the various

presentations of Jesus significance, God holds the overarching and crucial place.38

For

Paul, we may say, if adequate discourse about God now requires reference to Jesus, it is also

the case that Jesus significance is expressed consistently with reference to God.

So, Pauls emphasis on believers as in Christ, in a powerful relationship with Christ,

sits comfortably within a larger vision of Gods overarching supremacy. Paul also saw Christ

as appointed by God as the Son of God (the definite article consistently used) and the

Lord (e.g., Rom 1:3-4; Philip 2:9-11), and so the close relationship with Christ that Paul

described and urged was for him the divinely-willed mode by which believers were to enter

obediently into Gods redemptive purposes.39

Nevertheless, this centrality of Jesus, in

particular this notion of believers being in Christ, seems to be another distinguishing mark

of the messianic christology affirmed by Paul in the context of other forms of Jewish

messianism.

Devotional Practices

I turn now, finally, to note another distinctive of Pauls view of Christ. Indeed, to my

mind, this is the most striking and distinctive feature of the religious stance reflected in Pauls

letters: The exalted Jesus is programmatically treated as rightful recipient of devotional

practice (including corporate worship) along with God.40

Having written on this topic

repeatedly over some twenty-five years, I shall (and must) treat a selection of the data only

briefly here.41

As in my previous publications, to avoid abstractions I focus on specifics of

devotional practice, especially those that appear to be features of corporate worship.

38

Hurtado, God in New Testament Theology, 53. 39

I have discussion Pauls references to Jesus as Gods Son (infrequent, but very important in his discourse)

elsewhere: Son of God, DPL 900-906; and Jesus Divine Sonship in Pauls Epistle to the Romans, in

Romans and the People of God, ed. Sven K. Soderlund and N. T. Wright (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 217-

33. 40

Collins (Scepter and the Star, 208) posited, the most significant Christian departure from Jewish notions of

the messiah was the affirmation of the divinity of Christ, comprising claims that eventually went beyond

anything we find in the Jewish texts (209, emphasis mine). I register two points in response: First, Collins

phrase, affirmation of the divinity of Christ, is insufficiently clear or precise as to what is meant. It is difficult

to tell the force of rhetoric in ancient texts. Angels can be referred to as gods, and the mysterious

Melchizedek can be identified as the Elohim of Psa 82:1 (11QMelch). The really innovative development in

earliest Christian circles, and the far more significant one in its historical context, was the dyadic devotional

pattern exhibited in a whole constellation of practices. Second, though remarkable and novel, earliest Jewish

believers (including Paul) did not apparently intend their Jesus-devotion as a departure from their Jewish

religious matrix. 41

My earlier and fuller discussions include these: One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient

Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988; 2nd

ed., Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998); The Binitarian

Shape of Early Christian Worship; At the Origins of Christian Worship: The Context and Character of

Earliest Christian Devotion (Carlisle: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), esp. 63-97. I continue to

be surprised, however, how often scholars downplay or ignore outright the phenomena in question.

13

In 1 Corinthians 1:2, Pauls characterization of believers in every place is all those

who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. The phrasing,

, is obviously an adaptation of a biblical expression

used often to describe cultic invocation or worship of YHWH.42

We can only presume that

Paul used this expression in full knowledge of this, and that he refers to some equivalent

action of cultic acclamation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, to underscore this point, it is

this cultic action that he refers to here as itself the sufficient and common description of

believers.

In Romans 10:9-13 we likely have another reference to this cultic acclamation of, and

ritualized reverence for, the exalted Jesus. Here, he refers to uttering the verbal confession,

(v. 9), and only a few statements later refers to calling upon him

(, v. 12); then Paul directly quotes the statement from LXX Joel 3:5 (MT

2:32), whoever calls upon [] the name of the Lord shall be saved (v. 13).43

In

this reference to the ritual invocation/acclamation of Jesus, Paul uses a biblical statement that

originally referred to the cultic invocation/worship of YHWH.

This cultic acclamation of Jesus also seems to be alluded to in 1 Corinthians 12:3, and

probably in Philippians 2:9-11 as well, the latter text part of what is widely thought to derive

from an early Christian ode used in worship.44

The maranatha in 1 Corinthians 16:22 is

now commonly taken as evidence that a similar cultic acclamation/invocation of Jesus

featured also in Aramaic-speaking circles of Jewish believers as well as in Pauline

congregations.45

In addition to cultic acclamation/invocation of Jesus and odes celebrating him chanted

in worship, there is the place of Jesus in the corporate meal of the ekklesia. Paul refers to it

as the Lords supper ( , 1 Cor 11:20), the risen Christ rather obviously the

42

To call upon the name of the Lord (e.g., Gen 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; cf. 1 Kings 18:24-26; Psa 116[LXX 114]:4,

13[LXX 115:4]); call upon the Lord (e.g., 1 Sam 12:17; Psa 17[LXX]:4); call upon your [YHWHs] name

(e.g., Psa 74[LXX]:2); the reference to Moses and Aaron in Psa 98(LXX):6-7; and the cultic invitation to call

on me [YHWH] in Psa 49(LXX): 14-15. Note also, e.g., this phrasing in Pss.Sol. 6:1-2. 43

Carl J. Davis, The Name and Way of the Lord, JSNTSup 129 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1996), discusses the

early Christian appropriation of the Joel text. 44

This view of Philip 2:5-11 originated with Ernst Lohmeyer, Kyrios Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zu Phil. 2, 5-11

(Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universittsbuchhandlung, 1928), and has now obtained wide endorsement. Among

more recent comments, see Andrew Chester, High ChristologyWhence, When and Why? Early Christianity

2 (2011), 22-50, esp. 39-43. On the importance of odes/hymns as expressions of Jesus-devotion, see, e.g.,

Martin Hengel, The Song About Christ in Earliest Worship, in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T &

T Clark, 1995), 227-91. 45

Wilhelm Boussets attempts to side-step the force of 1 Cor 16:22 did not prove persuasive. I review the

matter briefly in my Introduction to the 2013 reprint of Boussets Kyrios Christos, xii-xiii.

14

Lord in question. Indeed, Paul draws a direct comparison with the cult-meals devoted to

various Roman-era deities (1 Cor 10:14-22). Although we should allow for variations in the

specific ways that earliest Christian circles may have understood their common meals, it

seems clear that in all extant references Jesus was central in one way or another, whether as

the cult-host of the meal, or in his messianic/redemptive work.46

Pauls references to prayers include striking instances where Jesus is co-recipient, as

in 1 Thessalonians 3:11-13, where God and our Lord Jesus are implored jointly on behalf

of the Thessalonian believers.47

Also, Pauls typical letter-salutations mentioning both God

and Jesus (e.g., 1 Thess 1:1; Philip 1:2; Gal 1:3; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2), which are sometimes

referred to as wish prayers and which may well derive from liturgical formulae, likewise

reflect a striking duality or dyadic devotional stance, in which God and Jesus are effectively

linked as sources of the grace and peace invoked upon recipients. Pauls equally well-

known grace benedictions, which also may well reflect early liturgical expressions/practice,

further demonstrate the remarkable place of the risen Jesus in the religious life that Paul

affirms (e.g., 1 Cor 16:23; Gal 6:18; 1 Thess 5:28). Moreover, in 2 Corinthians 12:8-9, Paul

refers to his repeated petitions made directly to the Lord (who in this context must be

Jesus) to remove a thorn in the flesh.48

To cite yet one more item making up the remarkable constellation of devotional

actions, the entrance rite for the early circles of believers, baptism, appears typically to have

been performed in/into the name of Jesus (e.g., alluded to in 1 Cor 6:11). Lars Hartman

has shown that this likely involved a ritual invocation of Jesus name over (and/or by) the

candidates, signifying that they were now made the property of Jesus.49

It also posits Jesus as

the basis of eschatological salvation.

I trust that these examples will suffice to make the basic point that in Pauls letters we

have a remarkable devotional pattern in which Jesus functions prominently along with God,

and that this is apparently unique in the context of second-temple Jewish religion and other

forms of Jewish messianism. Granted, in contexts of worship, the key title Paul applies to

46

Even in Didache, Jesus is the occasion for and content of the given to God (Did 9:110:6) 47

Other examples of similar wish-prayers in Pauls letters include Rom 15:5, 13, 33 (in which God alone is

invoked). Although scholars remain divided on the question of its authorship, there also examples in 2

Thessalonians (2:16-17, God and Jesus; and 3:5, apparently the Lord here is Jesus). 48

On early Christian evidence more broadly, see Paul F. Bradshaw, The Status of Jesus in Early Christian

Prayer Texts, in Portraits of Jesus: Studies in Christology, ed. Susan E. Myers (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck,

2012), 249-60. The classic study is Aleksy Klawek, Das Gebet zu Jesus. Seine Berechtigung und bung nach

den Schriften des Neuen Testaments: Eine biblisch-theologische Studie, NTAbh 6/5 (Mnster:

Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1921). 49

Lars Hartman, Into the Name of the Lord Jesus: Baptism in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,

1997).

15

Jesus is () .50 But, to repeat the point, in Pauls letters the one confessed and invoked

as is also accorded the honorific , and is the descendent of David and the one

whose death and resurrection confirms his messianic status. For Paul, Jesus status as

does not conflict with or relativize his messianic role but, instead, expresses its particularly

exalted nature.

Conclusion

In the foregoing discussion I have itemized several key features of the christology and

devotional stance reflected in Pauls letters that are noteworthy individually and that

collectively comprise an apparently novel development in second-temple Jewish religion. To

my mind, the most striking of these features is the prominence of the exalted Christ in early

Christian devotional practices, the dyadic devotional pattern that we have noted.

Perhaps the closest we get to analogous figures are the mysterious Melchizedek

(referred to in a few fragmentary Qumran texts, esp. 11QMelchizedek) and the messianic

figure in the Parables of Enoch.51

But the Melchizedek figure seems to be a high angel

projected as acting in the eschatological future essentially as field-marshall in the triumph of

Gods purposes on earth.52

It is not entirely clear that he should be thought of as a messiah,

or how he relates to the messianic expectations found in other Qumran texts. Moreover, he

does not seem to play a role in the actual religious life of Qumran or any other circle of

second-temple Jews, and he appears more to be what we can term a figure of eschatological

dreams.

The Chosen One (a.k.a. Righteous One, Anointed One, that Son of Man) of

the Parables of Enoch is clearly a messianic figure, combining several biblical influences,

and (as noted earlier) even transcendent qualities.53

Chosen and named before the creation of

the world (1 Enoch 48:2-3, 6), in some future day he will be revealed and enthroned and will

50

On Pauls use of , see, e.g., L. W. Hurtado, Lord, DPL 560-69. 51

Cf. Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 136-53, for a review of various figures (human and/or angelic) given a

throne in the heavens. On the Qumran evidence, see, e.g., L. W. Hurtado, Monotheism, Principal Angels, and

the Background of Christology, The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. T. H. Lim and J. J. Collins

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 546-64. 52

See, e.g., my discussion of various principal angel figures in One God, One Lord, 71-92, including Michael

(75-78) and Melchizedek of Qumran texts (78-79). 53

See now the detailed Excursus in George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A

Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 37-82 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 113-23,

esp. 118-19, noting the composite nature of this figure. They judge, however, that in the Parables, with the

exception of 71:14 . . . the figure is not human but transcendent (115). Likewise, Erik Sjberg, Der

Menschensohn im thiopischen Henochbuch (Lund: Gleerup, 1946) took the figure as ein himmlisches

Wesen (58), and Collins (Scepter and the Star, 208): If he is not divine, he is clearly more than human.

16

execute Gods judgement, even over Azazel and all his associates and all his host (55:4)

and other heavenly beings (61:8-9), as well as all the unrighteous people of the earth (62:3-9;

69:26-29).

There surely are interesting similarities between this messianic figure of the Parables

and the portrayal of Jesus in the Paul and other NT writings, e.g., both figures show the

combined appropriation of various biblical traditions (e.g., the Davidic Messiah, the son of

man figure of Daniel 7, the Servant figure of Deutero-Isaiah, and personified Wisdom). But

we should not ignore the noteworthy differences. As with the Melchizedek of Qumran, the

messianic figure in the Parables is a projection of eschatological hopes and dreams, or

perhaps we should say a product of fervent exegesis of biblical texts, a figure who is yet to be

revealed.54

For Paul, however, the Messiah who has been made is Jesus, born of a

woman, born under the Law (Gal 4:4) a real and recent human figure to whom Paul ascribes

extraordinary status and roles (e.g., as agent of creation in 1 Cor 8:4-6).

Moreover (and most significant in my view), we have no evidence or reason to

presume that there were Jewish circles in which the Chosen One of the Parables functioned

in devotional practices comparably to the ways that Jesus did in the early ekklsias.55

There

is no indication of an equivalent dyadic devotional pattern, no programmatic mutation in

devotional practices/life such as we see reflected (indeed, presumed) in Pauls letters.56

Note

that throughout the Parables, it is the name of the Lord of Spirits (God) that is to be praised

(e.g., 39:7, 9-11), and through which prayer and intercession is offered (e.g., 40:6; 45:3).

Sinners are those who deny the name of the Lord of Spirits (e.g., 41:2; 45:1-2; 46:7; 48:10),

and the righteous believe in, depend upon, and praise the name of the Lord of Spirits (e.g.,

44:4; 46:8; 47:2; 61:11). In this (Gods) same name they are saved (48:7; 50:3) and will be

54

Cf. James A. Waddell, The Messiah: A Comparative Study of the Enochic Son of Man and the Pauline Kyrios

(London: T&T Clark, 2011), who characterized as bias my observation that the references to the Chosen One

in the Parables comprise literary phenomena (8). 55

I consider Waddells claim that the explosion of early devotion to Jesus that Hurtado insists upon is really

an echo of Enoch devotion to the Son of Man (The Messiah, 10) to be a serious misjudgement. I also

Waddells extended discussion of my views (8-13) as seriously distorting and so his attempts at refutation wide

of the mark. 56

Curiously, Nickelsburg and VanderKam posit that in Rev 5 the Lamb stands before Gods throne as the

Chosen One does in 1 Enoch 49:2, and claim that the Lambs relationship to God parallels that of the Chosen

One and the Lord of Spirits in 1 Enoch and Gods Anointed One and God in Psalm 2 (1 Enoch 2, 122). But

this is to ignore the astonishing distinctive of Rev 5, which is that the Lamb receives heavenly worship jointly

with God, esp. in vv. 8-14. Cf. the landmark study by Richard J. Bauckham, The Worship of Jesus in

Apocalyptic Christianity, NTS 27 (1981), 322-41; id., The Worship of Jesus,The Climax of Prophecy:

Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 118-49; Larry W. Hurtado, Revelation 4--5

in the Light of Jewish Apocalyptic Analogies, JSNT 25 (1985), 105-24.

17

blessed (53:6; 58:4); and it is typically God alone to whom cultic worship is given in various

scenes (e.g., 63:1-7; 69:22-24).57

Neither Qumran nor the Parables explain or account for the distinctive variant-form

of messianism that we see affirmed by Paul, or made it inevitable. Moreover, there seems to

me scant evidence to posit some direct influence or borrowing from any one of these upon

any other.58

Instead, the Melchizedek of Qumran and the Chosen One of the Parables offer

additional and independent illustrations of the variegated nature of Jewish messianism in the

early first century CE, in which Pauls messianic christology comprises another distinctive,

and (in my view) even more remarkable, variant-form.59

57

In 48:5, all peoples will fall down and worship before him, but they will glorify and bless and sing hymns

to the name of the Lord of Spirits. I.e., it looks as if the Chosen One, acting as Gods representative, is the

convenor of this worship, but not its recipient. In 62:5-6, the kings and mighty and all who possess the land

will bless and glorify and exalt him who rules over all, which must refer to that Son of Man (the Chosen

One). But this looks more like a scene of obeisance of the conquered to the conqueror than cultic worship.

Were it the latter, we should expect to see the reverence given by the righteous. 58

Cf. in particular Waddell, The Messiah. 59

Indeed, the historical value of such phenomena as Melchizedek and the Chosen One of the Parables is

enhanced if they and the early christology that we see in Paul are all essentially independent developments. For

thereby they all provide multiple examples of the innovations that could take place.